| Who: | Entities who have current or would like to investigate ASR projects. Consultants who assist in the permitting, design, or construction of ASR projects. |
| When: | February 21, 2018, 9:00 a.m. |
| Where: | Department of Natural Resources, Room 1040 1594 W. North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116 |
| Purpose: | This joint training held by the Utah Divisions of Water Rights, Water Quality, Drinking Water and the Utah Geological Service focuses on Aquifer Storage And Recovery. It will expound on how to obtain the necessary permits and how to successfully plan and implement a pilot project. The divisions will also touch on the ways that they are collaborating to ensure that this program is strategic and successful and will answer questions. |
| Agenda: | 1. Water Rights ASR Perming Process - James Greer, PE 2. Utah Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program - Candace Cady, MS, PG 3. Drinking Water Requirements - Ying-Ying Macauley, MS, PE 4. Design and Implementation of an ASR pilot project - Paul Inkenbrandt, PG |
Please RSVP by e-mailing teresawilhelmsen@utah.gov to reserve a seat. |
A blog written by a Utah water rights lawyer with recent case law summaries, legislative updates, and informative articles about Utah water law.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Training on Aquifer Storage and Recovery
The Division of Water Rights will be hosting a training session on navigating the permitting process for aquifer storage and recovery ("ASR") projects. The following information comes from the Division's notice regarding the training session.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Public Meeting Concerning Groundwater Policies in Box Elder County
The Utah Division of Water Rights has announced a public meeting regarding an update to the groundwater appropriation policies for the Malad and Bear River drainages within Box Elder County. The information below comes from the meeting notice.
What: Public meeting
Who: Water users in the Malad and Bear River drainages within Box Elder County
When: 3:00 pm on January 10, 2018
Where: Bear River Water Conservancy District, 102 West Forest Street, Brigham City, Utah, 435-723-7034
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to present a proposed update to the interim groundwater appropriation policy for the Malad and Bear River drainages within Box Elder County. Personnel from the Division of Water Rights will be available to answer all questions and receive comments provided by the general public and interested parties.
If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to provide input, please send your written comments to:
Division of Water Rights
1780 North Research Parkway, Suite 104
North Logan, UT 84341
435-752-8755
Agenda:
1. Introduction - Kent Jones, State Engineer
2. Summary of hydrogeologic information - James Greer, Assistant State Engineer
3. Policy update - Will Atkin, Regional Engineer
4. Public questions/comments
A map of the Malad and Bear River Groundwater Policy Area is available here.
What: Public meeting
Who: Water users in the Malad and Bear River drainages within Box Elder County
When: 3:00 pm on January 10, 2018
Where: Bear River Water Conservancy District, 102 West Forest Street, Brigham City, Utah, 435-723-7034
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to present a proposed update to the interim groundwater appropriation policy for the Malad and Bear River drainages within Box Elder County. Personnel from the Division of Water Rights will be available to answer all questions and receive comments provided by the general public and interested parties.
If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to provide input, please send your written comments to:
Division of Water Rights
1780 North Research Parkway, Suite 104
North Logan, UT 84341
435-752-8755
Agenda:
1. Introduction - Kent Jones, State Engineer
2. Summary of hydrogeologic information - James Greer, Assistant State Engineer
3. Policy update - Will Atkin, Regional Engineer
4. Public questions/comments
A map of the Malad and Bear River Groundwater Policy Area is available here.
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Utah Stream Access Coalition v. Orange Street Development
The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Utah Stream Access Coalition v. Orange Street Development. This case focuses on the interpretation of navigability under the Public Water Access Act.
In the 2008 decision in Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court established a broad public easement to utilize the beds of Utah's waterways for recreational purposes. In response to this decision, the Utah legislature adopted the Public Water Access Act in 2010. The Act placed restrictions on the broad easement recognized under Conatser. Specifically, the Act restricted recreational access to water on public property and to waterways that are navigable.
In 2011, Utah Stream Access Coalition ("USAC") filed a lawsuit against Orange Street and other landowners along a one-mile stretch of the Weber River. USAC asserted that the stretch of river was navigable under the Act, and therefore open to recreational access. Following a four-day trial, the district court issued a decision agreeing with USAC's position. The district court concluded that the section of the river was navigable, and the court issued an injunction preventing the landowners and the State from interfering with the public's recreational access to the one-mile section of the river. The district court also determined that the State owned the bed of the river section. Orange Street Development appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court.
Orange Street first argued that the district court applied the wrong test for navigability. The district court had applied the test commonly referred to as the "navigability-for-title" test, which is whether waterways were, at the time of statehood, "used or ... susceptible of being used in [its] ordinary condition, as highways of commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water." The Supreme Court concluded that this test had been adopted into the Act, as shown by the language of the Act that a waterway is navigable if it "is useful for commerce and has a useful capacity as a public highway of transportation." The Supreme Court therefore held that the district court had employed the correct standard for navigability.
Orange Street also argued that the district court had incorrectly applied the facts of the case to the navigability test. The Supreme Court disagreed, and noted the testimony and evidence that had been presented to the district court showing that the Weber River had been used for regular log drives to supply wood for railroad construction, mining timbers, and sawmills. The Supreme Court determined that this evidence was sufficient to support the district court's determination that the Weber River was used as a highway of commerce, and is therefore navigable.
The Supreme Court did disagree with the district court's decision in one regard. The Supreme Court held that because the parties had specifically agreed that the question of title to the bed of the river was not at issue in the case, the district court erred when it made the determination that the State owned the bed of the river. The Supreme Court therefore reversed on this point, but affirmed the remainder of the district court's decision that the one-mile stretch of the Weber River was navigable, as defined by the Act, and therefore open to public recreational access.
To read the full opinion, click here.
In the 2008 decision in Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court established a broad public easement to utilize the beds of Utah's waterways for recreational purposes. In response to this decision, the Utah legislature adopted the Public Water Access Act in 2010. The Act placed restrictions on the broad easement recognized under Conatser. Specifically, the Act restricted recreational access to water on public property and to waterways that are navigable.
In 2011, Utah Stream Access Coalition ("USAC") filed a lawsuit against Orange Street and other landowners along a one-mile stretch of the Weber River. USAC asserted that the stretch of river was navigable under the Act, and therefore open to recreational access. Following a four-day trial, the district court issued a decision agreeing with USAC's position. The district court concluded that the section of the river was navigable, and the court issued an injunction preventing the landowners and the State from interfering with the public's recreational access to the one-mile section of the river. The district court also determined that the State owned the bed of the river section. Orange Street Development appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court.
Orange Street first argued that the district court applied the wrong test for navigability. The district court had applied the test commonly referred to as the "navigability-for-title" test, which is whether waterways were, at the time of statehood, "used or ... susceptible of being used in [its] ordinary condition, as highways of commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water." The Supreme Court concluded that this test had been adopted into the Act, as shown by the language of the Act that a waterway is navigable if it "is useful for commerce and has a useful capacity as a public highway of transportation." The Supreme Court therefore held that the district court had employed the correct standard for navigability.
Orange Street also argued that the district court had incorrectly applied the facts of the case to the navigability test. The Supreme Court disagreed, and noted the testimony and evidence that had been presented to the district court showing that the Weber River had been used for regular log drives to supply wood for railroad construction, mining timbers, and sawmills. The Supreme Court determined that this evidence was sufficient to support the district court's determination that the Weber River was used as a highway of commerce, and is therefore navigable.
The Supreme Court did disagree with the district court's decision in one regard. The Supreme Court held that because the parties had specifically agreed that the question of title to the bed of the river was not at issue in the case, the district court erred when it made the determination that the State owned the bed of the river. The Supreme Court therefore reversed on this point, but affirmed the remainder of the district court's decision that the one-mile stretch of the Weber River was navigable, as defined by the Act, and therefore open to public recreational access.
To read the full opinion, click here.